Sitigus Foods Corp. v. 72-02 Northern Blvd. Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sitigus Foods Corp. v. 72-02 Northern Blvd. Realty Corp.

293 A.D.2d 597, 740 N.Y.S.2d 219, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 597 (Sitigus Foods Corp. v. 72-02 Northern Blvd. Realty Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sitigus Foods Corp. v. 72-02 Northern Blvd. Realty Corp., 293 A.D.2d 597, 740 N.Y.S.2d 219, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover for property damage, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated June 7, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a judgment upon their failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.

A court may excuse a default in answering upon a showing of a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the default (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382). The defendants satisfied this standard. The period of delay was minimal. While the defendants promptly sought an extension of time to answer, the plaintiff refused this request and instead immediately moved for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendants’ failure to appear or answer (see Buderwitz v Cunningham, 101 AD2d 821). It is clear that the defendants acted diligently and never intended to abandon their defense.

Furthermore, under these circumstances, the defendants’ assertion that any damage was caused by the allegedly negligent acts of an independent contractor constituted a sufficient showing of a meritorious defense (see Dente v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 252 AD2d 534; Mercado v Slope Assoc., 246 AD2d 581). [598]*598Prudenti, P.J., Florio, S. Miller, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover for property damage, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated June 7, 2001, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a judgment upon their failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.

A court may excuse a default in answering upon a showing of a meritorious defense and a justifiable excuse for the default (see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Miles v Blue Label Trucking, 232 AD2d 382). The defendants satisfied this standard. The period of delay was minimal. While the defendants promptly sought an extension of time to answer, the plaintiff refused this request and instead immediately moved for leave to enter a judgment upon the defendants’ failure to appear or answer (see Buderwitz v Cunningham, 101 AD2d 821). It is clear that the defendants acted diligently and never intended to abandon their defense.

Furthermore, under these circumstances, the defendants’ assertion that any damage was caused by the allegedly negligent acts of an independent contractor constituted a sufficient showing of a meritorious defense (see Dente v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 252 AD2d 534; Mercado v Slope Assoc., 246 AD2d 581). [598]*598Prudenti, P.J., Florio, S. Miller, Friedmann and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 597, 740 N.Y.S.2d 219, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sitigus-foods-corp-v-72-02-northern-blvd-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack